Don't prosecute older drivers who run red lights

[Drago]

Personally I think anyone who can't do something as simple as observe a red light shouldn't be on the road regardless of their age, but it seems some people think otherwise...

https://metro.co.uk/2021/12/01/olde...-prosecution-for-running-red-lights-15696760/

What else could people escape prosecution for simply because they're knocking on a bit? Shoplifting? Arson? Dangerous road behaviour with the potential to injure or kill innocent people?

And im not keen on the wording either. People don't accidentally run red lights - they negligently run them. Doing something accidentally suggests a human frailty or weakness is at play, a kind of force majeure, something beyond the control of the subject, rather than an inability to take responsibility for their own actions.

Clearly the behaviour of all drivers, including older ones, affects us as vulnerable users and im not happy with the prospect. One can only hope that no one in government listens.

 

[Blue Hills]

The story isn't quite what some of the headlines might suggest though is it ? - old tabloid trick of a shocking/attention grabbing headline followed by the full story/proper story down below - often a long long way down below.

The proposal appears to be that folks will get their abilities looked at - will surely give them a jolt - may end with them being taken off the road - safer for the rest of us than a fine which may be pocket money to some.

 

[Pale Rider]

The story isn't quite what some of the headlines might suggest though is it ? - old tabloid trick of a shocking/attention grabbing headline followed by the full story/proper story down below - often a long long way down below.

Nothing wrong with a bit of topspin, but it's rather worrying a trained investigator has fallen for it.

 

[Brandane]

I'm in favour of getting dangerous, incompetent drivers off the road by whatever means, no matter what age they are. This idea does appear to support that, in a round about way, but only for drivers over 70.
The rest of them, we have to wait until they are actually CAUGHT running a red light 4 times so that they gather enough points for a ban. Even then they seem to be able to BS their way to avoiding a ban, or carry on driving regardless, given that the chances of getting caught are so slim.

 

[DCBassman]

Personally, I'd want more red light cameras to catch more RLJs and make it a minimum 1year ban...

 

[Drago]

The story isn't quite what some of the headlines might suggest though is it ? - old tabloid trick of a shocking/attention grabbing headline followed by the full story/proper story down below - often a long long way down below.

The proposal appears to be that folks will get their abilities looked at - will surely give them a jolt - may end with them being taken off the road - safer for the rest of us than a fine which may be pocket money to some.

Why should they be given that benefit, when younger drivers would be penalised instead? If its such a great casualty reduction idea then why is it not being universally suggested?

Where is the evidence that it may give them a jolt and thus improve future driving?

Age is no defence to any inadequacy at an activity that had the potential to kill. If someone simply isn't up to the job due to age then thats a medical issue of awareness and acuity, and a jolt won't help that - if youre unable to drive without making safety critical errors, for whatever reason, then you shouldn't be driving. There is no middle way.

Personally, I'd want more red light cameras to catch more RLJs and make it a minimum 1year ban...

I like this! I think the starting point for all offences should be a 28 day ban, and none of this hardship bollards. If you're needing your car for something critical then its up to you to not abuse the privelege, not up to the courts and socitymto accommodate your offending.

 

[Deleted member 1258]

Having recently renewed my license, I'm 70 in a couple of weeks, I had to self certify that I was still fit to drive, it will be the same in 3 years time when I renew again, renewing your licence at seventy and beyond should include an eyesight test and a medical, it shouldn't be up to the driver or their family or friends to turn round and say maybe its time to hang up your car keys.

 

[Blue Hills]

Nothing wrong with a bit of topspin, but it's rather worrying a trained investigator has fallen for it.

you may call it "topspin", I call it downright distortion/game playing. I've been around long enough to know about it though. So I very often used to read the tabloid headlines and then skip to the bottom and start reading up from there. Very often the real story was right right at the bottom, maybe in the penultimate para - at which point I could just throw it back on the tube seat I'd picked the trash up from. Save myself the bother of reading the vast swathes in the middle.
Of course many readers wouldn't get as far as the bottom, or would even miss the rather subtle bit which basically told you that the entire story was crap/a waste of toilet time.
The bit at the bottom is of course the tabloid journo's defence - "well I did give you facts".
Well yes but not in a meaningful way, one that suited me rather than the rag.

 

[Blue Hills]

Personally I think anyone who can't do something as simple as observe a red light shouldn't be on the road regardless of their age, but it seems some people think otherwise...

https://metro.co.uk/2021/12/01/olde...-prosecution-for-running-red-lights-15696760/

What else could people escape prosecution for simply because they're knocking on a bit? Shoplifting? Arson? Dangerous road behaviour with the potential to injure or kill innocent people?

And im not keen on the wording either. People don't accidentally run red lights - they negligently run them. Doing something accidentally suggests a human frailty or weakness is at play, a kind of force majeure, something beyond the control of the subject, rather than an inability to take responsibility for their own actions.

Clearly the behaviour of all drivers, including older ones, affects us as vulnerable users and im not happy with the prospect. One can only hope that no one in government listens.

See these bits Drago:

1:
"Motorists aged 70 and above who are caught accidentally running a red light or unnecessarily slow driving should have their skills assessed instead, they said, rather than facing hefty fines or even prosecution."

and on the skills assessment:


2:

"When someone is found to be unsafe behind the wheel, a report is sent to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, which decides whether to revoke their licence."

If I was an elderly red light runner and wanted to keep cruising the roads, if comfortably off I think I'd rather bung a quick payment/bribe in the post no questions asked than face someone checking me out.

 

[Lozz360]

Why should they be given that benefit, when younger drivers would be penalised instead? If its such a great casualty reduction idea then why is it not being universally suggested?

Where is the evidence that it may give them a jolt and thus improve future driving?

It is hardly a benefit to have your driving abilities assessed with the possible outcome of having your license revoked.

Blue Hills has already made the point that it is wise to actually read the article rather than posting an opinion based on just the attention grabbing headline.

To summarise the article, RLJ’s under the age of 70 are likely to face a £100 fine and three points on their license. The idea is that this will be enough of a deterrent to prevent a repeat offence. Whereas a RLJ over 70 will have their driving abilities assessed and if it is deemed that they are not fit to drive, then their license will be removed. This makes sense, because if the reason for jumping the red light is due to, say, their mental faculties are slowing down, then no amount of fine or punishment is going to correct future behaviour.

 

[fossyant]

FIL was a liability in his later years - the amount of 'bills' we found from Chips away after his death was incredible - he was hiding the fact he kept 'bumping' the car.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

It is hardly a benefit to have your driving abilities assessed with the possible outcome of having your license revoked.

Blue Hills has already made the point that it is wise to actually read the article rather than posting an opinion based on just the attention grabbing headline.

To summarise the article, RLJ’s under the age of 70 are likely to face a £100 fine and three points on their license. The idea is that this will be enough of a deterrent to prevent a repeat offence. Whereas a RLJ over 70 will have their driving abilities assessed and if it is deemed that they are not fit to drive, then their license will be removed. This makes sense, because if the reason for jumping the red light is due to, say, their mental faculties are slowing down, then no amount of fine or punishment is going to correct future behaviour.

This assumes the rljing of the older person is mental and that of the younger driver isn’t mental. If a younger driver jumps a red light clearly their mental faculties are not quite right.

 

[Dogtrousers]

Hang on, have I got this right? If you jumped a red light at age 70+ and elected to be assessed, and passed the assessment, you'd get off scot free?

Or am I being dumb and not (skim) reading the article properly?

This would in effect be saying "Yes, you knew exactly what you were doing and it was not an error bought on by decrepitude. You are free to go and do it again".

Surely the assessment should be in addition to the fine/ban. OK if you fail the assessment and your licence is revoked then I can see it might be fair to waive the fine as you clearly aren't going to do it again, and you can't really suspend a licence that has been revoked.

 

[Time Waster]

Two things here. Motoring offence having different penalties/no penalties for the specific offence based on age. Then there's the ability to drive safely and subsequent safety assessment. Those imho should happen every serious offence no matter what age.

You do not accidentally RLJ you make a conscious decision somewhere along the line That leads to the offence. Whether that's at the lights or getting into the car to drive it when you can't prevent yourself from RLJing. No matter when the decision was made it's conscious and should be actionable in the same way no matter what your age is.

Assessment of driving ability happens once in your driving career at the test. Many on the road have not been tested as strictly and thoroughly as new drivers have. Unless there's specific reasons you are unlikely to be forced into a second assessment of driving skills until it's too late due to age or other reason such as motoring offence, mental health or other. That is a big problem.

Self assessment for over 70s every 3 years is pathetic attempt at solving a relatively small issue of elderly drivers who should not be driving. It doesn't address people from 17 to 69.

Imho there should be regular, independent medical assessment for all drivers. There should also be skills and hazard perception assessments for all on regular basis. There should also be strict punishment for motoring offences for all drivers. No hardship or different outcomes for certain age groups. Universality for all.

Of course I'm less than 50yo and hold this view so biased? Or perhaps I'm not biased because I'm not at or near the age of 70. I just think driving is a privilege not right and as such you need to prove you're safe often! I also believe you should get and accept punishment when you commit an offence irrespective of personal details.

 

[Time Waster]

A decision to drive was made leading to offence. Even if you get your licence taken you still made a decision leading to offence. Why should that decision escape a fine?